Casino Complaint My Bet-At.eu Account Has Been Closed With Accusations Of Fraud

[Nifty29]

I can see the argument for not disclosing any of the specifics of the PAB (don't want to give away how to play with advantage or how the casino catches those out who do). The problem is then that we the members only see the complaint and the outcome, and we must "have faith" in the decision reached by Casinomeister (a business partner of the casinos, after all).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not questioning the verdict - I'm just saying that without all of the information available to us it's impossible to really know.

Does it really matter if two players know each other, or if they collude, discuss strategy etc? Is is such a big crime?

If they are really two seperate individuals, I cannot see why it is such a big deal, who cares?

Although the fact that only a few members have insisted all evidence be tabled here is quite interesting....I find the members asking for such information is even more interesting.

I can only think of one reason why anyone would want to know exactly how the fraudster was caught. I mean, it doesn't really seem to bother the vast majority of people here. Why? Well, there is a certain degree of trust that is necessary when it comes to PABs and their outcomes. If one doesn't have ANY trust in the staff here, then one questions why one would even bother being a member here.....I mean, who wants to be associated with a bunch of liars and their blind followers?

 

[Igor82]

It is, and it isn't. I think, as is being discussed on the other Bet-At thread, colluding doesn't really confer much (if any) advantage to the player. I suppose it's a spectrum really, ranging from two people who know each other and gamble at the same casino right the way up to a syndicate of players opening accounts together and trying to maximise profit using a pre-determined strategy. Either way it's not a crime, and seems very much like a flaky grey area in casino regulations.

Multi-accounting on the other hand is a black and white issue; it's forbidden in the casino rules (essentially a contract that you agree upon when you open an account), so if the casino can prove that one user has multiple accounts then I believe they're within their right to forfeit winnings and close the account. You break the rules, you suffer the consequences (and besides trying to abuse bonuses or circumvent a ban there's really no need to have more than one account).

Ok ,so i'm curious:

Why is MA black/white for you and collusion isn't? What additional inherit risk to the casino a player can pose by holding a multitude of KYC'd accounts that collusion doesn't impose?

So you have 15 accounts, took 15 subs, why not 100 accounts, 100 subs, you regularly deposit one per account. All are KYC'd with same docs, all use the same range of credit cards... the ONLY benefitr to you is that for every offer you can take 1,5,10,100 of it.

Now you and your 15 flatmates do the exact same thing. Difference being, their documents are different, their walks of life are different and they have higher exposure to money laundering for a casino.

Please explain to me why, in your opinion one is B/W and the other Grey? What's the difference?

 

[AC7X]

It is possible to have a good indication as you have ample examples of CM standing behind, in full defence, of the player. Eradication of the spirit of the bonus terminology across many operators is in no small part due directly to CM. All you need to do is walk through the pit to see the number of toes stepped on and operators brought in line as a result of CM hard stance and unbiased approach on both ends.

I'm not criticising the PAB system at all. Thankfully I've never had to request a PAB but it's a service I would definitely avail myself of, and have a good degree of confidence in, should I ever need to. But it's not a court of law.

As for "business partner" comment - i was made i-gaming industry rep months ago far before CM generated any revenue from our business and max regularly takes non-partnered cases for members of the forum. Seeing as that is all fully pro-bono work by a very small team that are running a leading voice in the industry i feel a rethink of how the CM decision making process is perceived or their "business centric" approach is questioned, even in a passing comment, is needed. < and by that i sincerely mean no disrespect at all, irrelevant of our fleeting differences, just stating the facts.

I believe I'm right in saying that this website is funded by the affiliate relationship that CM has with its listed casinos? So there is a business relationship, in most cases, between CM and the casinos they deal with during PABs. It makes sense to me that they would want to advocate for players as best they can whilst maintaining a good standing with their business partners.

 

[Andy Walker]

Ok ,so i'm curious:

Why is MA black/white for you and collusion isn't? What additional inherit risk to the casino a player can pose by holding a multitude of KYC'd accounts that collusion doesn't impose?

So you have 15 accounts, took 15 subs, why not 100 accounts, 100 subs, you regularly deposit one per account. All are KYC'd with same docs, all use the same range of credit cards... the ONLY benefitr to you is that for every offer you can take 1,5,10,100 of it.

Now you and your 15 flatmates do the exact same thing. Difference being, their documents are different, their walks of life are different and they have higher exposure to money laundering for a casino.

Please explain to me why, in your opinion one is B/W and the other Grey? What's the difference?

If this is the way that the collusion could possibly work at a casino then I would blame CS really for lack of training.

 

[AC7X]

Although the fact that only a few members have insisted all evidence be tabled here is quite interesting....I find the members asking for such information is even more interesting.

I haven't insisted on anything. In fact I agreed that posting the evidence submitted for a PAB to a public forum was a bad idea.

I can only think of one reason why anyone would want to know exactly how the fraudster was caught. I mean, it doesn't really seem to bother the vast majority of people here. Why?

Again: didn't ask, didn't want to know.

Well, there is a certain degree of trust that is necessary when it comes to PABs and their outcomes. If one doesn't have ANY trust in the staff here, then one questions why one would even bother being a member here.....I mean, who wants to be associated with a bunch of liars and their blind followers?

Exactly, there is an inherent requirement of trust in any arbitration. When the general public are blind to the specifics of the case they can't make up their own mind, but must defer to the judgement of the arbiter. We can't know; that's all I ever said.

One might question where one got the notion that one had no trust in the staff here?

Ok ,so i'm curious:

Why is MA black/white for you and collusion isn't? What additional inherit risk to the casino a player can pose by holding a multitude of KYC'd accounts that collusion doesn't impose?

To me, it seems that the lines are more blurred with collusion. If my friend and I (at separate addresses) are both members of a casino and are both sent a bonus offer, and we are chatting to each other on Facebook whilst playing, is that collusion? If not, does it become collusion if we say we will split our winnings? If so, how can the casino prove that? I think when there is talk of winnings being voided there should be some very clear rules and robust ways of proving that those rules have been broken.

In the case of multi-accounting there is a clear infraction; one person has knowingly set up multiple accounts to confer a (perceived) advantage to themselves. Proving that one person has more than one account also seems straight-forward, since they could only provide ID to confirm one identity. So either they need to make multiple accounts all with the same information which is obvious, or make up false information which they then couldn't verify.

I think I've explained how I see it as different. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick terminology wise.

 

[Igor82]

I believe I'm right in saying that this website is funded by the affiliate relationship that CM has with its listed casinos? So there is a business relationship, in most cases, between CM and the casinos they deal with during PABs. It makes sense to me that they would want to advocate for players as best they can whilst maintaining a good standing with their business partners.

Look at the number of relationships - Would you risk integrity for any ONE of those? CM is in demand, and as such they don't 'need' to bend for the operator. If anything they have proven time and time again that operators are those that need to meet THEIR standards - BoF being case in point

 

[Igor82]

To me, it seems that the lines are more blurred with collusion. If my friend and I (at separate addresses) are both members of a casino and are both sent a bonus offer, and we are chatting to each other on Facebook whilst playing, is that collusion? If not, does it become collusion if we say we will split our winnings? If so, how can the casino prove that? I think when there is talk of winnings being voided there should be some very clear rules and robust ways of proving that those rules have been broken.

No, i know it's silly to say "trust me on this one" considering the topic, but collusion cases need same amount of irrefutable proof that MA would naturally yield - MA is easier to prove, but a collusion case needs enough proof to hold up under scrutiny.

See mine and "your" case for example, if we remove the allusions - i really did have similarities, but those are far fetched. For all i know and frankly by now believe, it really WAS a complete coincidence. As such, that stays as suspicion but nothing further - "beyond reasonable doubt" is the key phrase here - i know you had made fun of it at the tie, but its 100% true. You cant just "wing" it as on the internet, more than anywhere else, truth finds it's way to the open.

Why do you think there isn't a failed PAB that you can link to to anther forum bashing on CM process? because any process (be it here or elsewhere) would ask for more than just a casino hunch in order to sustain its integrity.

Facebook chat isn't proof or working together

 

[AC7X]

Look at the number of relationships - Would you risk integrity for any ONE of those? CM is in demand, and as such they don't 'need' to bend for the operator. If anything they have proven time and time again that operators are those that need to meet THEIR standards - BoF being case in point

I don't know enough, and I've not been here long enough, to say anything with any certainty. Certainly all that you say is true at face-value, but the cynic in me is, well, cynical. If all of the operators decided that they'd had enough of Bryan and his standards, how long would it take for this site to go offline? Is this site not also his livelihood? Principles are important, but rarely are they more important than food on the table.

I feel as though I'm leading myself down a path here where I could be misconstrued as accusing CM of any wrongdoing - I'm not. So for the record:

• I think the PAB system is a useful tool for players.
• I think Casinomeister is ultimately an affiliate site. The difference is that they offer more than just links to casinos, they have a set of minimum standards and an interactive community which is very useful. EDIT TO ADD: And of course the PAB system itself offers players some recourse in tricky situations.
• I believe that the outcome of a PAB is a decision reached by one individual and does not constitute an objective "verdict" of guilty or innocent.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what proportion of BoFs end unsuccessfully?

 

[chuchu59]

I don't know enough, and I've not been here long enough, to say anything with any certainty. Certainly all that you say is true at face-value, but the cynic in me is, well, cynical. If all of the operators decided that they'd had enough of Bryan and his standards, how long would it take for this site to go offline? Is this site not also his livelihood? Principles are important, but rarely are they more important than food on the table.

I feel as though I'm leading myself down a path here where I could be misconstrued as accusing CM of any wrongdoing - I'm not. So for the record:

• I think the PAB system is a useful tool for players.
• I think Casinomeister is ultimately an affiliate site. The difference is that they offer more than just links to casinos, they have a set of minimum standards and an interactive community which is very useful. EDIT TO ADD: And of course the PAB system itself offers players some recourse in tricky situations.
• I believe that the outcome of a PAB is a decision reached by one individual and does not constitute an objective "verdict" of guilty or innocent.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what proportion of BoFs end unsuccessfully?

I find the bolded part quite amusing. Operators may not wish to dictate what standards Bryan advocates. On the contrary, as long as he plays fair to both player and casino its good enough for them as they need trust from the players if you get what I mean. We should bust rogue casinos but by the same token rogue players should also be busted lest they take advantage of this site.

 

[Igor82]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what proportion of BoFs end unsuccessfully?

you can see the failed ones on the BoF page.

 

[AC7X]

No, i know it's silly to say "trust me on this one" considering the topic, but collusion cases need same amount of irrefutable proof that MA would naturally yield - MA is easier to prove, but a collusion case needs enough proof to hold up under scrutiny.

I would certainly hope so. The problem is that outwith these forums there really isn't anyone policing the online gambling industry to scrutinise these decisions. We've seen licensing authorities sit idly by as operators do whatever they wish on countless occasions.

See mine and "your" case for example, if we remove the allusions - i really did have similarities, but those are far fetched. For all i know and frankly by now believe, it really WAS a complete coincidence. As such, that stays as suspicion but nothing further - "beyond reasonable doubt" is the key phrase here - i know you had made fun of it at the tie, but its 100% true. You cant just "wing" it as on the internet, more than anywhere else, truth finds it's way to the open

Haha, well I will reiterate once more that it must have been coincidence.

The issue of reasonable doubt with forfeiture of winnings has similarities to the death penalty debate; for every ten people that you confiscate winnings from for suspected collusion there might be two or three who are innocent, out of pocket and ultimately have no recourse.

 

[AC7X]

We should bust rogue casinos but by the same token rogue players should also be busted lest they take advantage of this site.

Of course, I agree. For instance in this case the PAB decision has went against the player and he has been banned.

But the problem is, if I may don my tinfoil hat for a moment, because we don't have access to all of the information there could be a conspiracy going on. Player gets stuffed for his winnings and his credibility stamped into the ground, the operator is vindicated, and CM's business relationship with the operator flourishes. We the users go on believing that the right thing has been done.

I don't think that is what has happened here, nor am I accusing the PAB process of being bent. I'm just giving a macabre example to re-illustrate my point of just how much of this process is down to faith.

 

[Igor82]

I don't think that is what has happened here, nor am I accusing the PAB process of being bent. I'm just giving a macabre example to re-illustrate my point of just how much of this process is down to faith.

That would be a repeat occurrence in that case, with operators that pay dearly for Bryan to look the other way - and those cases would find ears that will listen. Given the 14 years CM has been alive for, you'd be bound to find more than a few to substantiate such a theory.

This is where pragmatic approach comes in - yes all is possible in theory, but if you look at all the evidence you can deduce a fairly probably case outcome, which is: trust the process.

 

[AC7X]

if you look at all the evidence you can deduce a fairly probably case outcome, which is: trust the process.

Well, you would say that wouldn't you?

 

[Igor82]

oh man...

 

[Cleveland]

We already knew this process boils down to faith / trust in Bryan and Max. Just as our legal system boils down to faith / trust. Clearly some lawyers lie, cheat, steal. Clearly some police officers lie, cheat, steal. Clearly some judges lie, cheat, steal.

None of that is new, as members here we've heard the same complaints over and over. Either you trust them or you don't. I've seen them do much good for players. I'm certain human error will come into play sometimes because that is human, and I have yet to meet a perfect one.

I'm still not seeing the point of where this thread is now going, as I stated multiple times, this concept isn't new.

 

[Przecinek]

Weatherman meets Vynil - his awesomely best friend that shares his views and they hang out and do amazing things together

They say, hey - I'm getting a LOT of bang for my buck with this bonus and you remember how fast we hit that massive win on 300 shields (or loaded, or couch potato or [insert high variance game here]) - if we try push though together i'm sure we can maximise the bonus and move into positive EV on that game (...) And that's why collusion is barred.

I think I must be dreaming. This seems like something straight out of rogue pit. So recommending bet-eu casino to someone is barred? What if someone posts info here that game [insert game here] has a really huge RTP, let's play it. I understand that all CM members that play this game from now on and considered fraudsters.

For a moment I thought rep was just giving an example of bonus abuse works in practice but the last sentence ("And that's why collusion is barred.") looks almost as if Igor was banning all wins on high variance slots games. I totally understand that multiaccounting is considered casino fraud, but to say that talking to a friend is banned/barred is something that escapes me on so many levels. Sorry but I'd rather play in casino that doesn't tell me who I can talk to lol

Oh and this:

Now you and your 15 flatmates do the exact same thing. Difference being, their documents are different, their walks of life are different and they have higher exposure to money laundering for a casino.

Please explain to me why, in your opinion one is B/W and the other Grey? What's the difference?

I don't get the money laundering part, but this example is not even grey. It's plain and simple. It's just 15 different gamblers (advantage players) that play at your casino, deal with it. As it was described by CM: There is a scale where on one extreme you have frivolous punters that always play until the moneys gone, on the other extreme you have bonus beaters. Most of us are neither of them, but we are somewhere on that scale. We play for fun, but the biggest adrenaline rush comes from winning big. You can't take the good without the bad. If you can't accept that - change your terms and conditions to make then less exploitable.

After all as CM put it in glossary

Bonus abusers
Term often used to describe the situation where a player is better at math than the casino manager.

 

[Igor82]

I think I must be dreaming. This seems like something straight out of rogue pit. So recommending bet-eu casino to someone is barred? What if someone posts info here that game [insert game here] has a really huge RTP, let's play it. I understand that all CM members that play this game from now on and considered fraudsters.

For a moment I thought rep was just giving an example of bonus abuse works in practice but the last sentence ("And that's why collusion is barred.") looks almost as if Igor was banning all wins on high variance slots games. I totally understand that multiaccounting is considered casino fraud, but to say that talking to a friend is banned/barred is something that escapes me on so many levels. Sorry but I'd rather play in casino that doesn't tell me who I can talk to lol

no, please - don't take that once sentence out of a whole page i as just "prettying it up" for Vynil to poke at him

Here, a better reason why collusion is barred on our casino - i posted it a short while ago:

No, but it's worth nothing that 10 players get 10 times higher bankroll. There are other elements at play that aren't just connected to the possibility of payout - it starts with those and ends with what choice of game at what bet.

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to:

1. Receive the 10 times the maximum awardable "free" bankroll per player. Meaning if max was 200, 2000 was now assigned to group that thinks in sync, acts in unison.

If casino wanted to give up to 2000 per person, they would - however the chose not to, they opted to the personal limit as they thought was healthy for their business model. Finding a way to get 10 of the same offer, while emulating the behaviour of a single individual, is trying to exploit the system to bypass its limitations.

2. When you do get that 10xbanroll, it's not given with the same T&C conditions of a 2000 bonus. That bankroll isn't "locked-in" as a single WR amount to be unlocked at say 80,000 - it in fact get's unlocked in "segments" of 8,000 each so across your 10 spinning bankrolls (budgets), if one does win big (irrelevant if the EV changed) now that one, or those few individuals, will have a fraction of the WR they need to complete

ADD: If we are to talk fair, then the FAIR way would be to group the 10 "self registered and honest about their connection pre-signup" individuals and give them MERGED bonus T&C, by which:

If one of the individuals only meets 1000 WR out of stipulated 8,000, the remaining balance of 7,000 WR is carried over onto the rest of the group.

Now you can add or deny game volatility to that and increased bankroll potential, but fact remains, acting in unison as a single individual while benefiting from multiple instances of an offer reserved to be issued ONCE without registering your intentions is an exploit to a system where a single individual busting out before the WR is completed is effectively cutting the overall WR requirement of the group, as a single 2000 bonus WR would impose (80K)

Side note: By decreasing the overall WR imposed to protect the bonus from +EV, a group can in fact change the expectancy from -EV to +EV
> aka if 5 guys bust out after 1k wagered due to their enormous bets, the other 5 guys continuing to play the game at same bet value with same starting bankroll now have only 40K WR to complete on a total bonus of 2000, making that bonus X20B

 

[Cleveland]

@ Igor82: You've done more than enough explaining in regards to the casinos stance on this. We each know it isn't as simple as me telling a friend to play at a casino because a particular game is fun or doing well, and then the buck stops there. If you would have told Max your case is based on that fact alone, then clearly the PAB wouldn't have gone in your favor.

This thread is getting far beyond ridiculous. He can't go into specific detail so stop trying to pry out information with useless scenarios that alone obviously wouldn't be enough to confiscate someone's winnings let alone stand up in a PAB investigation.

I'm fairly certain a mod already said in this very thread not to do what y'all are doing.

 

[dionysus]

For me, I'm taking it on faith Max and Bryan saw what was needed, and agree with the casino.
After all, the ENTIRE thing could have been done behind closed doors, The casino has no obligation to share its findings with a third party - for anyone to insinuate CM might just be trying to maintain good casino relations alone is silly - it could all have been left at A: the casino saying we dont discuss player accts, and B - CM saying thread closed
I think Igor has been as transparent as he possibly can without compromising his own casino security - surely even he answers to several people. The fact he's here talking to us at all has leagues to me

 

[Nifty29]

I haven't insisted on anything. In fact I agreed that posting the evidence submitted for a PAB to a public forum was a bad idea.



Again: didn't ask, didn't want to know.



Exactly, there is an inherent requirement of trust in any arbitration. When the general public are blind to the specifics of the case they can't make up their own mind, but must defer to the judgement of the arbiter. We can't know; that's all I ever said.

One might question where one got the notion that one had no trust in the staff here?



To me, it seems that the lines are more blurred with collusion. If my friend and I (at separate addresses) are both members of a casino and are both sent a bonus offer, and we are chatting to each other on Facebook whilst playing, is that collusion? If not, does it become collusion if we say we will split our winnings? If so, how can the casino prove that? I think when there is talk of winnings being voided there should be some very clear rules and robust ways of proving that those rules have been broken.

In the case of multi-accounting there is a clear infraction; one person has knowingly set up multiple accounts to confer a (perceived) advantage to themselves. Proving that one person has more than one account also seems straight-forward, since they could only provide ID to confirm one identity. So either they need to make multiple accounts all with the same information which is obvious, or make up false information which they then couldn't verify.

I think I've explained how I see it as different. Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick terminology wise.

I don't know enough, and I've not been here long enough, to say anything with any certainty. Certainly all that you say is true at face-value, but the cynic in me is, well, cynical. If all of the operators decided that they'd had enough of Bryan and his standards, how long would it take for this site to go offline? Is this site not also his livelihood? Principles are important, but rarely are they more important than food on the table.

I feel as though I'm leading myself down a path here where I could be misconstrued as accusing CM of any wrongdoing - I'm not. So for the record:

• I think the PAB system is a useful tool for players.
• I think Casinomeister is ultimately an affiliate site. The difference is that they offer more than just links to casinos, they have a set of minimum standards and an interactive community which is very useful. EDIT TO ADD: And of course the PAB system itself offers players some recourse in tricky situations.
• I believe that the outcome of a PAB is a decision reached by one individual and does not constitute an objective "verdict" of guilty or innocent.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know what proportion of BoFs end unsuccessfully?

OK.

So you say you accept/agree with the PAB decision and you accept the rules regarding non-disclosure.

And yet....you continue to harp on about the details of the PAB.

It is exactly the opposite of what someone who accepts/agrees with something would be doing in my experience.

Either you have an odd sense of what the words "accept" and "agree" mean, or you have your own agenda here. I'll let the mods decide.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not questioning the verdict - I'm just saying that without all of the information available to us it's impossible to really know.

So what do YOU suggest then? How do YOU think we can make the process 100% infallible? How would YOU improve it? I mean, besides the entire membership being sent a dossier containing all correspondence between casino and player, and all evidence gathered and the means by which it was gathered, and then everyone voting on it?

You're saying that we don't REALLY know if the player was guilty as charged or not.....so what's your point? Get out the lie detector? The thumbscrew? Crack open the sodium pentothal?

If I were a player who was 100% innocent and had been labelled a fraudster and had my winnings confiscated, I would be pursuing every possible avenue to clear my name, including legal action. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, but I can count on one hand how many PABs have turned out to be totally wrong in my many years here...and I am being generous. I would actually go so far as to say the "failure to get to the truth" rate is probably better than a court of law in many respects, as it does not allow for legal manouvering and other bullshit that keeps criminals out of prison.

If the player wants everything "on the table", he should go to another complaint service that allows it. It works BOTH ways however, which is why many fraudster don't bother....and why they don't bother taking it any further up the chain...including lawyers...because they know damn well they are guilty as hell.

Oh BTW...what makes you think my earlier comments were about YOU? I think it is interesting that you automatically assumed this.....doesn't seem anyone else did...??

 

[hakapuku]

I have nothing against this specific case's resolution. What I don't not like in this thread is a new meaning for the word "collusion" used by Igor and his casino. Applying this "collusion" criterion on players without additional evidences can have even worse consequences for a gambling community than a notorious "spirit of the bonus". On the other hand if you do have additional evidences of , for example, multi-accounting- then why will you need this kind of "collusion" accusation?

 

[dionysus]

I'm guessing because Igor believes in full transparency

 

[maxd]

I believe that the outcome of a PAB is a decision reached by one individual ....

Generally speaking that is not true. I usually do the grunt work on PAB cases and then Bryan and I make the final decision together. In clear-cut cases I'll make the call. In particularly difficult cases he'll typically review the material I've gathered, gather whatever else he thinks is necessary and make the decision. If needs be we'll get input from industry experts, usually on game analysis issues, etc.

Do we hope that people will trust our fairness and decision making? Yes, clearly, and if needs be we'll refer them to the many years of combined experience we have and the many thousands of cases we've handled. If that's not enough then they're free to take their issue(s), and trust, elsewhere. You included.

 

[Przecinek]

I have nothing against this specific case's resolution. What I don't not like in this thread is a new meaning for the word "collusion" used by Igor and his casino. Applying this "collusion" criterion on players without additional evidences can have even worse consequences for a gambling community than a notorious "spirit of the bonus". On the other hand if you do have additional evidences of , for example, multi-accounting- then why will you need this kind of "collusion" accusation?

Same here. I don't question the fact that OP was a fraud, and I don't care about methods that were used to identify him. I trust Max on this one.

It just happened that this "spirit of collusion" topic was brought up here in particular and this is just something that looks like a rogue term based purely on speculation. Saying: what's the difference between two or more players that happen to know each other and multiaccounters seems to be abusive (towards the player) and doesn't give that 'we welcome winning players' vibe that is needed. It actually gives out a totally opposite vibe.

 

[Nifty29]

Same here. I don't question the fact that OP was a fraud, and I don't care about methods that were used to identify him. I trust Max on this one.

It just happened that this "spirit of collusion" topic was brought up here in particular and this is just something that looks like a rogue term based purely on speculation. Saying: what's the difference between two or more players that happen to know each other and multiaccounters seems to be abusive (towards the player) and doesn't give that 'we welcome winning players' vibe that is needed. It actually gives out a totally opposite vibe.

Here's the rub.

If you are NOT trying to scam the casino by having dozens of "friends" hitting the bonuses in an obviously targeted manner, then you have NOTHING to worry about. NOTHING.

It always seems to be the same people each time wanting more information and finer details....whereas most members don't bother because it is something that would never do , and would never have done. I just don't understand the constant need to know about this stuff. Its like wanting to know precisely how some crook scammed a bank etc....there's only one reason you would absolutely need to know.

AFAIK, giving precise definitions of "collusion" is a bit like giving giving information about how ID fraudsters etc get caught I.e. the last thing any GENUINE honest player wants is for the fraudsters to sharpen their skills, because it is THEM (me included) that pay.

 

[hakapuku]

Same here. I don't question the fact that OP was a fraud, and I don't care about methods that were used to identify him. I trust Max on this one.

It just happened that this "spirit of collusion" topic was brought up here in particular and this is just something that looks like a rogue term based purely on speculation. Saying: what's the difference between two or more players that happen to know each other and multiaccounters seems to be abusive (towards the player) and doesn't give that 'we welcome winning players' vibe that is needed. It actually gives out a totally opposite vibe.

Let's make one more example. Mr. A meets his old friend Mr. B at the bar. Mr. A is in a very good mood, laughing and joking all the
time. Then he tells his friend that he just won 3000 euro from some casino online. Mr. B will tell him
that he played many times at several casinos- but only losing. How did you win? And Mr. A will tell him that they give
a nice bonus at Bet.eu casino and that he only plays a slot called Loaded. It seems to be lucky for him.
And you better play high bets- otherwise the wagering requirements will kill your profit. So the next day Mr. B turns on his
computer, register at Bet.eu, claims the standard welcome bonus, plays Loaded slot and ...loses!
And here comes Mr. C (his real name is Igor). He is the one who analyzes EVERY win at his casino. He sees that 2 guys
from the same small town played the same slot with the same bet size and at only one day time difference. Now that is very suspicious! These must be colluding fraudsters. Now Igor checks Mr. A's profile on Facebook. And bingo! Mr B is on Mr. A friends' list.
Now that is a real prove! Both accounts will be closed and Mr. A' s winnings confiscated.


That is what this "colluding" is all about. And that is why I am totally against it.

 

[The Dude]

...I believe I'm right in saying that this website is funded by the affiliate relationship that CM has with its listed casinos? So there is a business relationship, in most cases, between CM and the casinos they deal with during PABs. It makes sense to me that they would want to advocate for players as best they can whilst maintaining a good standing with their business partners.

Actually, the percentage of Accredited casino PABs is pretty low. And when players PAB against accred casinos it assists us in determining whether or not the casino is still maintaining its standards. Sometimes with changes of management or whatever, new terms and conditions are slipped in that counter agreed upon standards.

More here:
Link Outdated / Removed
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/pitchabitch/index.php

As for trusting what we do and say - never trust someone merely on what he/she says - look at the evidence. I've run this site for 15 years; the PAB section since 2000 - Max has been on board since 2007. In this amount of time, there have been thousands of complaints that have filtered through here - either as a PAB or in the public fora. We get it right most of the time - but yes, we've eaten crow a half dozen times or so (getting it wrong). When we get it wrong, we (and especially you) learn about it. And when we ever get things wrong, we are never too proud to admit our mistakes and make amends. We always strive to do the right thing.

Like I said, look at the evidence.

Thinking that this is just an affiliate site, you're wrong. There is a massive amount of information here - especially beyond the forum - we have a player consulting service, I do consultations myself, I have spoken at +60 conferences and gaming exhibitions concerning ethical marketing and other player focused topics. We have three newsletters, video casts, and provide players and industry peeps blogs, social groups (clubs) and all sorts of other stuff. If you spend some time on the site exploring, you'll find a lot of this stuff out yourself.

As for the site going offline because operators say "the hell with CM standards, let's be fuckwads." Well the odds of that happening are pretty slim. For one thing, the CM standards adhere to our philosophy, and every casino should be striving to meet or go beyond this. There will always be operators that are welcome here since many operators who see things eye-to-eye with our philosophy. And most people that know me personally know that I am a frugal bastard; I would rather walk before I take a cab, I fly economy, use free wifi when on the road, and I operate Casinomeister on a shoestring budget. My biggest expense is Max

 

[The Dude]

...

That is what this "colluding" is all about. And that is why I am totally against it.

Nope, you're wrong. The example you gave was bullshit. Please don't turn the thread into a into a circus. Thank you.

 

[hakapuku]

Nope, you're wrong. The example you gave was bullshit. Please don't turn the thread into a into a circus. Thank you.

What is unreal in my example? No lions, no elephants- just as it happens in everyday life. Two friends exchanging their experience. Certainly not colluding and not plotting some illegal actions.

 

[The Dude]

What is unreal in my example? No lions, no elephants- just as it happens in everyday life. Two friends exchanging their experience. Certainly not colluding and not plotting some illegal actions.

And here comes Mr. C (his real name is Igor). He is the one who analyzes EVERY win at his casino. He sees that 2 guys
from the same small town played the same slot with the same bet size and at only one day time difference. Now that is very suspicious! These must be colluding fraudsters. Now Igor checks Mr. A's profile on Facebook. And bingo! Mr B is on Mr. A friends' list.
Now that is a real prove! Both accounts will be closed and Mr. A' s winnings confiscated.

You are harassing igor82. That is why it is bullshit. You are trying to make him look like an ass with an analogy that is nowhere near the truth concerning this complaint thread. You are making it look like he is flippantly closing accounts at a whim with your twisted logic.

Posts like these are not conducive to an environment where we can freely share opinions and ideas. Posts like these offend the fair-mindedness and balance that we strive for and embrace in this forum.

Keep it up and see what happens.

 

[Przecinek]

AFAIK, giving precise definitions of "collusion" is a bit like giving giving information about how ID fraudsters etc get caught I.e. the last thing any GENUINE honest player wants is for the fraudsters to sharpen their skills, because it is THEM (me included) that pay.

Can't agree on this one. I don't care how multiaccounters get caught, I'm sure it's down to IT details and such. This is something i don't have to worry about and so it doesn't have to be 100% transparent. However this so called 'collusion' needs to be precisely estimated. Is it same games, same betstakes, what proximity in miles/km do people have to live from each other. Once we get those things in t&c, everyone will see that this is what I called 'spirit of the collusion'. No hard facts just some arbitrary measures. Also you say innocent players will NEVER have this problem. How can you be so sure? If a player wins 100k a lot of casinos will almost definitely try to pull some collusion accusation. We need to know exactly what constitutes 'collusion' otherwise players will prefer to play somewhere else, where they know their funds are safe.

I understand that 400k hit that Igor mentioned can hurt casino badly, but then again this coupled with some strange collusion thing that was never brought up by any other casinos (that no doubt also have problems with abusers) makes me feel like this isn't the best place to win big.

 

[Mousey]

..... My biggest expense is Max

I'd advise leaving off the weekly allotment of Twizzlers that you've added to the bread and water, Bryan. No need cozying the man.



/derail

 

[Nifty29]

Can't agree on this one. I don't care how multiaccounters get caught, I'm sure it's down to IT details and such. This is something i don't have to worry about and so it doesn't have to be 100% transparent. However this so called 'collusion' needs to be precisely estimated. Is it same games, same betstakes, what proximity in miles/km do people have to live from each other. Once we get those things in t&c, everyone will see that this is what I called 'spirit of the collusion'. No hard facts just some arbitrary measures. Also you say innocent players will NEVER have this problem. How can you be so sure? If a player wins 100k a lot of casinos will almost definitely try to pull some collusion accusation. We need to know exactly what constitutes 'collusion' otherwise players will prefer to play somewhere else, where they know their funds are safe.

I understand that 400k hit that Igor mentioned can hurt casino badly, but then again this coupled with some strange collusion thing that was never brought up by any other casinos (that no doubt also have problems with abusers) makes me feel like this isn't the best place to win big.

Oh I am certain SOME casinos would.....but I know that NONE of the casinos I frequent would do so, and have never done so to my knowledge. So, your point is...well...pointless.

Why do you think other casinos "never bring up" collusion (well some do actually...)?

Do you think Igor's casino is the ONLY online casino open to being hit by collusion?

You really should think about stuff properly before you post it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Can't agree on this one. I don't care how multiaccounters get caught, I'm sure it's down to IT details and such. This is something i don't have to worry about and so it doesn't have to be 100% transparent. However this so called 'collusion' needs to be precisely estimated. Is it same games, same betstakes, what proximity in miles/km do people have to live from each other. Once we get those things in t&c, everyone will see that this is what I called 'spirit of the collusion'. No hard facts just some arbitrary measures. Also you say innocent players will NEVER have this problem. How can you be so sure? If a player wins 100k a lot of casinos will almost definitely try to pull some collusion accusation. We need to know exactly what constitutes 'collusion' otherwise players will prefer to play somewhere else, where they know their funds are safe.

I understand that 400k hit that Igor mentioned can hurt casino badly, but then again this coupled with some strange collusion thing that was never brought up by any other casinos (that no doubt also have problems with abusers) makes me feel like this isn't the best place to win big.

Like Purple Lounge

Igor has been very abnormally transparent, so it's not just his casino getting hit, it's that it's just Igor telling us the details of how this affects operators.

Since Igor stated that his evidence would hold up in a court of law, it can't purely be based on the circumstantial scenario of friends A, B, and C discussing games down the pub.

The problem is that so many casinos HAVE pulled BS in order to rip off honest players, and the supposed regulators have repeatedly looked the other way. This has lead to trust falling to a low point, so even the honest casinos are not trusted to have gotten it right. Another element that has fed the distrust is crooked affiliates who will send players to the slaughter by listing rogue casinos that pay 50% commissions as "Number one", "safe", etc in glowing reviews.

 

[hakapuku]

Like Purple Lounge

Igor has been very abnormally transparent, so it's not just his casino getting hit, it's that it's just Igor telling us the details of how this affects operators.

Since Igor stated that his evidence would hold up in a court of law, it can't purely be based on the circumstantial scenario of friends A, B, and C discussing games down the pub.
The problem is that so many casinos HAVE pulled BS in order to rip off honest players, and the supposed regulators have repeatedly looked the other way. This has lead to trust falling to a low point, so even the honest casinos are not trusted to have gotten it right. Another element that has fed the distrust is crooked affiliates who will send players to the slaughter by listing rogue casinos that pay 50% commissions as "Number one", "safe", etc in glowing reviews.

Collusion- the way Igor wrote about it- can only be detected by circumstational evidences. If you add some other bullet-proof evidences here (like same computer used, stolen credit card used, chip dumping etc) then it already has nothing to do with "collusion" and is called fraud, multiple accounting etc. Pay attention that in his definition of collusion Igor stresses the fact that collusion and multi-accounting are similar but not the SAME. "Collusion: The joint effort of two or more individuals to gain an unfair advantage over the software and other players via pooling of funds to achieve unnatural increase of available bankroll through multiple bonus awards (similarly to multi-accounting) to benefit/take advantage from game engine design "
So how do you prove that joint effort has taken place? Do you have a video tape showing 2 colluders making an agreement? Do you have a written agreement between them? No, you can only make assumptions based on circumstational evidences: ip-location, gameplay style, bet size, game choice, time of play. If you name me any other- I will be really grateful. The main question is- what if all evidences Igor has are circumstational? Will it be enough for him to confiscate the winnings?

 

[Igor82]

COLLUSION

Collusion- the way Igor wrote about it- can only be detected by circumstational evidences. If you add some other bullet-proof evidences here (like same computer used, stolen credit card used, chip dumping etc) then it already has nothing to do with "collusion" and is called fraud. The main question is- what if all evidences Igor has are circumstational? Will it be enough for him to confiscate the winnings?

Ok, time to put a stop to a lot of speculation that has been going on here.

1. Collusion paragraphs are not exclusive our our casino. They are a real threat and with real evidence to prove why they should be barred from Casinos, which you can read below. I wont speak about other operators and their conditions as it is not my place to speak of competition, but if you do your research you will find enough places that state it.

2. As much as a multi-account can be traced, so can collusion. Your speculation that my evidence is circumstantial is just that - speculation. Evidence that is put forward to Byran, LGA, eCogra and other mediation services is anything BUT circumstantial and frankly, if i did disclose how - me knowing how we catch it and prove it can already think of half dozen ways to change the behaviour to damage our ability to do so, so last thing anyone should do ever is tell YOU how its caught and proven.

3. While your initial hunch is right that betting patterns and deposit values do trigger suspicions of collusion ,you are starting to sound like we just pull the term out of our hat. Frankly i don't like exposing even pattern recognitions as they are a clue enough to invoke behaviour change, let alone how we actually catch it beyond reasonable doubt - and yes, it WILL stand in court 100%.

This 'speculation' and allusions that we pull colludes out of hat are just simply unfair. I have made more than enough posts last night to show my eagerness to discuss and LISTEN and state transparently and more than just a few players actually agreed and listened. So, if you want to discuss why and how it has an impact, and why we bar it and what we could do more than just bar it to meet players expectations better and be the leaders of transparency and proactive communication, with your help - I'm more than happy to do so; i'm all ears as they say. However, if you just want to accuse me of rogue without any substantiation, behaviour then we have nothing to speak about.

Now, bonus abuse and collusion -it's a copy paste of my initial explanation and Balthazars example:

It's worth nothing that 10 players get 10 times higher bankroll. There are other elements at play that aren't just connected to the possibility of game payout - it starts with those and ends with what choice of game at what bet.

When working together AS IF A SINGLE ENTITY (meaning 10 working as one, acting as one) on a game, with an aim (same deposit amount, same bet, same game) players manage to:

1. Receive the 10 times the maximum awardable "free" bankroll per player. Meaning if max was €200, €2000 was now assigned to group that thinks in sync, acts in unison.

If casino wanted to give up to 2000 per person, they would - however the chose not to, they opted to the personal limit as they thought was healthy for their business model. Finding a way to get 10 of the same offer, while emulating the behaviour of a single individual, is trying to exploit the system to bypass its limitations.

2. When you do get that 10x bankroll, it's not given with the same T&C conditions of a 2000 bonus. That bankroll isn't "locked-in" as a single WR amount to be unlocked at say 80,000 - it in fact get's unlocked in "segments" of 8,000 each so across your 10 spinning bankrolls (budgets), one does win big (irrelevant if the EV changed) now that one, or those few individuals will have a fraction of the WR they need to complete

IMPORANT:

If we are to talk fair, then the FAIR way would be to group the 10 "self registered, honest about their connection pre-signup" individuals and give them MERGED bonus T&C, by which:

If one of the individuals only meets 1000 WR out of stipulated 8,000, the remaining balance of 7,000 WR is carried over onto the rest of the group.

Now you can add or deny game volatility to that and increased bankroll potential, but fact remains:

Acting in unison as a single individual while benefiting from multiple instances of an offer reserved to be issued ONCE without registering your intentions is an exploit to a system where a single individual busting out before the WR is completed is effectively cutting the overall WR requirement of the group, as a single 2000 bonus would impose (80K)

Side note:

By decreasing the overall WR imposed to protect the bonus from +EV, a group can in fact change the expectancy from -EV to +EV : aka if 5 guys bust out after 1k wagered due to their enormous bets, the other 5 guys continuing to play the game at same bet value with same starting bankroll now have only 40K WR to complete on a total bonus of 2000, making that bonus X20B

If you read above you will notice that by colluding the members of the ring can influence initially intended bonus WR by simply busting out early. Refer to my IMPORTANT NOTICE above for an option of how to mitigate it.

**********************************

After above Balth answered with an example of two cases:

Case 1 - 10 players depositing 100 each.
Case 2 - 1 player depositing 1000.


Below is my reply to that case:

Fair point, and I'll state it here that if you don't' agree with below and the safeguard suggestions on below I'll work to modify the terms to better represent the concerns. However, all ask is for you to work through it with me logically and openly:



Let's remove the game pay probability for a minute - although i see a profit on collusion syndicates 99/100 times, let's assume i'm looking at it wrong and it is not due to increased bankroll capacity. Let's isolate the bonus and it's terms and conditions:

Your example:

-One player depositing $100 ten times and getting the SUB ten times.
-One player depositing $1000 one time and getting the SUB one time.

Example 1

In example one, if SUB was 200% at x40, the 10 players will have received a total bankroll of 2000 with an aggregate WR of 80,000.

Player 1 places 24 bets of €25 without a single hit on loaded, and busts out, - generating WR of 600.
Player 2 places 24 bets of €25, in the process returns another 600 in winnings, places another 24 hands and busts out - generating WR of 1200.
Player 3 .... - generates WR of of 2400
Player 4 strikes a bit lucky but busts out before the required 8K WR - generates 7000 WR.
Player 5 generates 6,000 WR
Player 6 generates 2000 WR
Player 7 generates 3000 WR

Players 8,9 and 10 are still in the game and have hit a few decent x100, x200 rounds.

Player 8 balance is 1200 with 4K WR remaining.
Player 9 balance is 700 with 5k Remaining
Player 10 balance is 2200 with 1K remaining.

Now, together they came in and acted as single entity - same deposits, same subs, same bets, same game.

Their aggregate player balance is at this point €4,100. Their aggregate wagering requirement remaining is 10,000 euros.

Together, when they added all their bonuses and all their hands, players received a 2000 bonus, and at this point generated €23,2000 in volume toward WR, with another €10,00 remaining.

If cleared, they would have gotten a 2000 bonus with an aggregate WR of €33,200 making the bonus a measly x16 WR turnover instead of intended x40.

Example 2

One player comes and deposits 1000, gets 2000 bonnis at x40 requirement and a total WR of 80,000.

As he plays he gets EXACTLY the same result as those 10 individuals, the hands play out in EXACTLY the same way. He also generated €23,300 in total WR but has another €56,700 to go, unlike the €10,000 that remain in Example 1.

*******************************************

look at above, the game outcome was exactly the same but by working together, the players that bust out will have decreased the aggregate WR because proportionally to how early they bust out. That is becuase the WR is applied in segments rather than to a whole balance.

The only way for the casino to allow this is for a group of players to pre-register as a group, state is openly and they recieve merged bonus terms and conditions that state that any leftover WR from the individual 200 bonus applied, will carry over as the WR requirement of the group - to ensure initally imposed x40- is respected.

Do you agree with above being a fair term?

ALSO:

The bonus rule and engine design is to USE REAL MONEY FIRST, by intersecting the total bonus of 2000 into 10 sections, players get to use bonus and real money simultaneously which would physically not be possible if a single player opted for a 2000 bonus.

If you read above you can see that collusion is a very real risk to a casino bonus,

1. It can multiply the maximum bonus awarded because the parties work and function as a single entity with larger acquired bankroll

2. Due to it's segmented awarding, the WR requirement on the total bonus awarded can be influenced by players losing rapidly

3. It becomes possible to start wagering bonus funds, while another player is still wagering real funds which would be physically impossible to do if a single player got a single bonus at 10 times the size.

4. It is indisputably possible to change EV expectancy by working as a team as a result of point 2.

If you read above you can see that collusion CHANGES THE NATURE of the bonus and how it performs from its core. By that premise alone it should be barred IMHO.

Fact is we know it, we learned from it, we catch it, we can prove it in most cases and how we do it is a reservation that will remain with us (i speak for my casino) and should not be disseminated to the general audience to be argued or learned from.

Fact is, unless you are 100% resolved to employ the strategies above, it should not even bother you. And you if you feel that this casino attitude, my attitude and our presence here is a sign of rogue behaviour, i would ask you to think if a "rogue" casino has anything to gain by airing any taboo topic in this format, and if you do consider us potentially rogue, then for your own peace of mind I wholeheartedly suggest you do not play at a place that provides you with discomfort.

Any honest rational retorts are welcome, however if you wish to state your case on the premise of how we COULD be rogue if we WANTED to be rogue, then i say from now: that is non argument. IF we wanted to be rogue last thing we would be doing is going under BoF and there are easier ways to "rogue out" than full exposure to an entire player audience to scrutinise and judge.

Thank you

Igor.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Collusion- the way Igor wrote about it- can only be detected by circumstational evidences. If you add some other bullet-proof evidences here (like same computer used, stolen credit card used, chip dumping etc) then it already has nothing to do with "collusion" and is called fraud, multiple accounting etc. Pay attention that in his definition of collusion Igor stresses the fact that collusion and multi-accounting are similar but not the SAME. "Collusion: The joint effort of two or more individuals to gain an unfair advantage over the software and other players via pooling of funds to achieve unnatural increase of available bankroll through multiple bonus awards (similarly to multi-accounting) to benefit/take advantage from game engine design "
So how do you prove that joint effort has taken place? Do you have a video tape showing 2 colluders making an agreement? Do you have a written agreement between them? No, you can only make assumptions based on circumstational evidences: ip-location, gameplay style, bet size, game choice, time of play. If you name me any other- I will be really grateful. The main question is- what if all evidences Igor has are circumstational? Will it be enough for him to confiscate the winnings?

No, a PAB would go in favour of the player, and so would a court of law.

There would need to be at least one piece of evidence that shows there is collusion beyond the mere exchange of information. Unfortunately, there have been cases where casinos HAVE merely used circumstantial evidence, such as a sportsbook that decided that all players who followed a particular radio tipster were colluding and so had their winnings voided. It's this type of behaviour, unchallenged by regulators, that has lead to the general impression that collusion DOES just mean the exchange of information, such as a forum, website, or even a radio tipster.

A group of players that play the same exact strategy, and are found to have all used the same PC, would be evidence to back up the circumstantial evidence from gameplay alone.

Although they are different, multi accounters and colluders present the same risk to casinos. Many cases of collusion may well be multi accounters using the IDs of others with their agreement, and since all IDs can pass KYC, such cases probably get labelled as collusion, when it's really one player multi accounting with genuine verifiable IDs "borrowed" from friends.

Those busted for multi accounting tend to have trouble passing KYC on all the accounts they have used, so put their efforts into backing up only the account they win from as it has been common knowledge that accounts that do not result in a withdrawal don't get KYC checked as to do this for EVERY new account is too expensive.

As has been revealed in a recent police scandal here in the UK, another trick is to resurrect the IDs of people who have died (usually children). It works because the death records are not linked to the birth and tax records, so with all the birth data, it is possible to get the necessary ID documents, and since the victim is deceased, there is no one to spot that their ID has been hijacked. This scam is far more common than one might think, usually used to provide working ID accreditation for illegal immigrants, organised criminals, and others "on the run" from the law or a bad credit history.

The loophole exists because the state uses it, so has a motive for not making it impossible to get away with.

 

[dunover]

Actually, the percentage of Accredited casino PABs is pretty low. And when players PAB against accred casinos it assists us in determining whether or not the casino is still maintaining its standards. Sometimes with changes of management or whatever, new terms and conditions are slipped in that counter agreed upon standards.

More here:
Link Outdated / Removed
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/pitchabitch/index.php

As for trusting what we do and say - never trust someone merely on what he/she says - look at the evidence. I've run this site for 15 years; the PAB section since 2000 - Max has been on board since 2007. In this amount of time, there have been thousands of complaints that have filtered through here - either as a PAB or in the public fora. We get it right most of the time - but yes, we've eaten crow a half dozen times or so (getting it wrong). When we get it wrong, we (and especially you) learn about it. And when we ever get things wrong, we are never too proud to admit our mistakes and make amends. We always strive to do the right thing.

Like I said, look at the evidence.

Thinking that this is just an affiliate site, you're wrong. There is a massive amount of information here - especially beyond the forum - we have a player consulting service, I do consultations myself, I have spoken at +60 conferences and gaming exhibitions concerning ethical marketing and other player focused topics. We have three newsletters, video casts, and provide players and industry peeps blogs, social groups (clubs) and all sorts of other stuff. If you spend some time on the site exploring, you'll find a lot of this stuff out yourself.

As for the site going offline because operators say "the hell with CM standards, let's be fuckwads." Well the odds of that happening are pretty slim. For one thing, the CM standards adhere to our philosophy, and every casino should be striving to meet or go beyond this. There will always be operators that are welcome here since many operators who see things eye-to-eye with our philosophy. And most people that know me personally know that I am a frugal bastard; I would rather walk before I take a cab, I fly economy, use free wifi when on the road, and I operate Casinomeister on a shoestring budget. My biggest expense is Max

Well, those who have won the $50 BierGeld might disagree with that!

 

[The Dude]

Well, those who have won the $50 BierGeld might disagree with that!

There is always money for beer my dear.

 

[Przecinek]

Like Purple Lounge

Igor has been very abnormally transparent, so it's not just his casino getting hit, it's that it's just Igor telling us the details of how this affects operators.

Ouch, that's pinchy but I see your point. Didn't think about it that way.

 

[AC7X]

Well, you would say that wouldn't you?

I'd just like to state for the record that this was a light-hearted remark said in jest to Igor. Since I was officially reprimanded for it, I just want to clarify that it was said in good spirits (a joke at my own expense more than anything else).

As has been revealed in a recent police scandal here in the UK, another trick is to resurrect the IDs of people who have died (usually children). It works because the death records are not linked to the birth and tax records, so with all the birth data, it is possible to get the necessary ID documents, and since the victim is deceased, there is no one to spot that their ID has been hijacked. This scam is far more common than one might think, usually used to provide working ID accreditation for illegal immigrants, organised criminals, and others "on the run" from the law or a bad credit history.

What have you been smoking VWM?! Scamsters are forging dead peoples' documents so that they can get access to multiple sign-up bonuses?! LOL.

 

[Igor82]

What have you been smoking VWM?! Scamsters are forging dead peoples' documents so that they can get access to multiple sign-up bonuses?! LOL.

I actually found that pretty funny laughed out loud!

 

[vinylweatherman]

I'd just like to state for the record that this was a light-hearted remark said in jest to Igor. Since I was officially reprimanded for it, I just want to clarify that it was said in good spirits (a joke at my own expense more than anything else).



What have you been smoking VWM?! Scamsters are forging dead peoples' documents so that they can get access to multiple sign-up bonuses?! LOL.

Actually, it is happening as a means to perpetrate all sorts of financial fraud. I fail to see why casino scammers would be unique in not considering this. It beats standard ID theft because there is no one to spot it happening to their ID and start contacting the authorities or the companies scammed. It means the scammers can bide their time and use the ID for much longer, wringing all possible value from it and then disappearing. When companies then try to chase unpaid orders or loans, no trace can be found via the usual sources as to where the non paying person has moved to (such as 192.com and electoral roll). It does of course involve laundering the money before ditching the fake ID.

If they had died as children, it's a better scam as their adult records are a clean slate, and it starts by getting a birth certificate, then a NI number, and then a background story. Then it's a drivers license and even a passport, which opens the door to the benefits system along with an ID of someone born here, which is of use to illegal immigrants. Next it is applying for as many loans as the ID will stand, and when the banks start refusing and companies stop allowing goods to be ordered on credit, the ID is ditched, goods sold for cash, and borrowed money laundered to another ID.

The undercover police got away with it for so long as they specifically used dead children, so the rightful owners of the ID didn't see any tell tale signs that one often sees with a traditional ID hijack, such as denied loans because of a missed payment on your credit file from a loan you never took out.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.......... One thing SDS officers did before going undercover was decide on a new name. They often adopted the identities of dead children because they needed a real persona so they could apply for documents like a driving licence and National Insurance card. ............

If it's worth it, why not add the scamming of online casinos to the portfolio and get the best of the ID.

To find out if the scam has been used against online casinos, it would mean casinos checking some of their unresolved cases against the register of deaths to see if any of their suspicious players that manage to pass KYC with the right documents actually died as children.

This scam is certainly used in benefit fraud, often with just the ID being used, not an actual person. Because the cases often go to court, all the details get revealed as to how they got caught, and also what they tried to cover their tracks. Remember, the ones who go to court are the ones that got caught, so there are others who were better able to cover their tracks.

 

[dunover]

Vinyl, anybody could ONCE send off for any birth certificate copy for £5 if they made up a half-believable reason.
This loophole was closed years back due to identity fraud.
Now things are different....

 

[The Dude]

We had a situation once where a guy was using his dead grandfather's ID for multi-accounting. There are a lot of lowlifes out there.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Vinyl, anybody could ONCE send off for any birth certificate copy for £5 if they made up a half-believable reason.
This loophole was closed years back due to identity fraud.
Now things are different....

Not different enough, because the police did it, and not with the blessing of the authorities, so they had to exploit the loopholes, although they would also have had access to inside knowledge of how the security checks worked.

However, this is not so much ID takeover as resurrecting dead person's IDs. This appears to be easier, else why would the police stoop so low if there was another way to do it that if revealed, would not make them look so bad.


Recently, a Panorama program was able to get a drivers license in the name of the home secretary, and did so to prove that this so called tightening of procedures didn't work. Even worse, David Blunkett was not only a well known figure, but a well known BLIND figure, yet no one at the DVLA smelled the proverbial rat, and so Panorama got the license. With this, they stated that they could go on to hijack the identity of a well known government minister (they didn't of course, they presented their finding to the government and invited comment).